Chief Ernest Elochukwu was a former National President of the Association of Nigerian Licensed Customs Agents. In this interview with THE WHISTLER, he raises concerns over the recent ports refurbishment deal the Nigerian government entered into with the United Kingdom. Elochukwu also faults the heavy foreign loan burden and the effects of the loans on the Nigerian economy. He spoke with Gbade OGUNWALE.
What is your assessment of the recent contract the Nigerian government entered into with the United Kingdom to refurbish the Nigerian ports?
The news of the multi-million dollar loan arrangement with the British government—reportedly tied to supporting the UK steel industry for refurbishing Apapa and Tin Can Island ports—came as a surprise to many stakeholders. There is a lack of clarity about which aspects of the port infrastructure are to be refurbished. For instance, if it concerns the terminals, what then is the role of the existing concessionaires currently managing those facilities?
Beyond that, Nigeria already carries a heavy debt burden. Loans must be repaid, and excessive debt servicing constrains economic growth and limits the government’s ability to invest in critical infrastructure. Borrowing should be strategic—aimed at improving efficiency and productivity—but this arrangement raises more questions than answers.
The government says the loans are meant for critical infrastructure development. Is that not sufficient justification?
In principle, borrowing for infrastructure is justifiable. However, in Nigeria’s case, there is often little accountability regarding how such funds are utilised. There is also a worrying trend of accumulating debt without clear outcomes. Young Nigerians, in particular, should be concerned, as their future is effectively being mortgaged.
Given Nigeria’s vast natural resources, the country should be generating sufficient revenue internally rather than relying heavily on external loans.
You mentioned that the ports are already under concession. Can you elaborate?
Yes, Nigerian ports have been under concession since around 2006, following concerns about inefficiencies in their management by the Nigerian Ports Authority. Private operators were brought in under agreements that required them to invest in infrastructure and manage operations profitably.
This raises a fundamental question: what exactly is this new loan meant to address? If infrastructure upgrades fall within the concessionaires’ responsibilities, why is the government stepping in with borrowed funds? Were stakeholders consulted? Was there a clear needs assessment? These are critical questions that remain unanswered.
Are you suggesting that any rehabilitation should be handled by the concessionaires?
If the refurbishment relates to areas under their control, then yes, it is their obligation under the concession agreements. However, if the upgrades concern broader infrastructure—such as access roads or waterways—then the government’s role becomes clearer. Still, stakeholders must be informed, and the necessity must be transparently established. The concern is that decisions of this magnitude appear to be taken without due consultation or proper process.
Analysts say a significant portion of the contract value may return to the UK. What is your view?
That is precisely why the loan arrangement needs careful scrutiny. Nigerians must be assured that there is a clearly defined need and that the financial package is economically sound and competitive. Unfortunately, public financial management in Nigeria often lacks measurable benchmarks. Budgets are announced without clearly stating expected outcomes, making it difficult for citizens to assess performance or hold the government accountable.
The government insists it has made progress on projects like the Lagos-Calabar coastal highway. Do you doubt such claims?
The issue is transparency. Without open processes, such claims are often viewed as propaganda. Projects should follow due process—needs assessment, stakeholder engagement, budgeting, competitive bidding—before execution. Unfortunately, in many cases, contracts are announced before these steps are completed.
What should the government have done differently regarding the ports?
The most pressing issue in Nigerian ports is not infrastructure but corruption. This has made Nigerian ports among the most expensive in West Africa. Freight charges, berthing costs, and cargo clearance expenses are significantly higher than in neighbouring countries.
As a result, many importers now route goods through ports in Togo and Ghana, particularly Lomé and Accra, and transport them into Nigeria by road. This is a troubling reversal, considering that Nigerian ports once served as regional transshipment hubs.
Are you saying modernisation and infrastructure upgrades are unnecessary?
Not at all. Modernisation may be necessary, especially given the age of facilities like Apapa and Tin Can ports. However, the process must be transparent. Stakeholders should understand what specific upgrades are planned—whether it involves berthing facilities, port systems, or other infrastructure.
Moreover, the ports generate substantial revenue. The question is: what is being done with these funds? Why resort to borrowing when internal revenue could potentially finance such upgrades?
What is your view on the broader issue of government borrowing and budget performance?
The integrity of Nigeria’s budgeting process is a major concern. A budget should clearly outline expected revenues and planned expenditures. When there are shortfalls, the reasons must be explained. If borrowing is being used to fund recurrent expenditure rather than capital projects, it signals a looming economic crisis. There must be accountability in revenue generation and spending. Nigerians deserve to know what loans are being used for and to track whether promised outcomes are achieved.
At present, the process appears opaque, with loan approvals sometimes rushed through without sufficient scrutiny. This is not sustainable and calls for urgent reform.
